Volunteer Summary
CONSORT Flow Diagram
Overall status
Characteristic | Overall1 | Control1 | Treatment1 |
|---|---|---|---|
time_point | |||
1st | 79 | 39 | 40 |
2nd | 61 | 34 | 27 |
1n | |||
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 791 | control, N = 391 | treatment, N = 401 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 79 | 40.90 ± 18.35 (21 - 148) | 42.47 ± 21.27 (22 - 148) | 39.36 ± 15.09 (21 - 70) | 0.454 |
gender | 79 | 0.283 | |||
female | 57 (72%) | 26 (67%) | 31 (78%) | ||
male | 22 (28%) | 13 (33%) | 9 (22%) | ||
occupation | 79 | 0.815 | |||
civil | 3 (3.8%) | 2 (5.1%) | 1 (2.5%) | ||
clerk | 16 (20%) | 7 (18%) | 9 (22%) | ||
homemaker | 7 (8.9%) | 2 (5.1%) | 5 (12%) | ||
manager | 10 (13%) | 6 (15%) | 4 (10%) | ||
other | 10 (13%) | 4 (10%) | 6 (15%) | ||
professional | 11 (14%) | 8 (21%) | 3 (7.5%) | ||
retired | 3 (3.8%) | 1 (2.6%) | 2 (5.0%) | ||
service | 4 (5.1%) | 2 (5.1%) | 2 (5.0%) | ||
student | 13 (16%) | 6 (15%) | 7 (18%) | ||
unemploy | 2 (2.5%) | 1 (2.6%) | 1 (2.5%) | ||
working_status | 79 | 54 (68%) | 29 (74%) | 25 (62%) | 0.257 |
marital | 79 | 0.885 | |||
divorced | 3 (3.8%) | 1 (2.6%) | 2 (5.0%) | ||
married | 21 (27%) | 11 (28%) | 10 (25%) | ||
single | 54 (68%) | 26 (67%) | 28 (70%) | ||
widowed | 1 (1.3%) | 1 (2.6%) | 0 (0%) | ||
marital_r | 79 | 0.923 | |||
married | 21 (27%) | 11 (28%) | 10 (25%) | ||
other | 4 (5.1%) | 2 (5.1%) | 2 (5.0%) | ||
single | 54 (68%) | 26 (67%) | 28 (70%) | ||
education | 79 | 0.038 | |||
primary | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
secondary | 11 (14%) | 2 (5.1%) | 9 (22%) | ||
post-secondary | 13 (16%) | 9 (23%) | 4 (10%) | ||
university | 55 (70%) | 28 (72%) | 27 (68%) | ||
university_edu | 79 | 55 (70%) | 28 (72%) | 27 (68%) | 0.678 |
family_income | 79 | 0.318 | |||
0_10000 | 10 (13%) | 4 (10%) | 6 (15%) | ||
10001_20000 | 17 (22%) | 5 (13%) | 12 (30%) | ||
20001_30000 | 13 (16%) | 8 (21%) | 5 (12%) | ||
30001_40000 | 10 (13%) | 5 (13%) | 5 (12%) | ||
40000_above | 29 (37%) | 17 (44%) | 12 (30%) | ||
high_income | 79 | 39 (49%) | 22 (56%) | 17 (42%) | 0.216 |
religion | 79 | 0.662 | |||
buddhism | 5 (6.3%) | 4 (10%) | 1 (2.5%) | ||
catholic | 5 (6.3%) | 2 (5.1%) | 3 (7.5%) | ||
christianity | 26 (33%) | 12 (31%) | 14 (35%) | ||
nil | 41 (52%) | 21 (54%) | 20 (50%) | ||
other | 1 (1.3%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.5%) | ||
taoism | 1 (1.3%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.5%) | ||
religion_r | 79 | 0.794 | |||
christianity | 31 (39%) | 14 (36%) | 17 (42%) | ||
nil | 41 (52%) | 21 (54%) | 20 (50%) | ||
other | 7 (8.9%) | 4 (10%) | 3 (7.5%) | ||
source | 79 | 0.006 | |||
bokss | 35 (44%) | 14 (36%) | 21 (52%) | ||
12 (15%) | 10 (26%) | 2 (5.0%) | |||
5 (6.3%) | 5 (13%) | 0 (0%) | |||
other | 13 (16%) | 4 (10%) | 9 (22%) | ||
refresh | 14 (18%) | 6 (15%) | 8 (20%) | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 791 | control, N = 391 | treatment, N = 401 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | 79 | 19.53 ± 2.29 (15 - 25) | 19.18 ± 2.14 (15 - 24) | 19.88 ± 2.40 (15 - 25) | 0.178 |
setv | 79 | 11.23 ± 1.69 (8 - 15) | 11.03 ± 1.63 (8 - 14) | 11.43 ± 1.75 (8 - 15) | 0.298 |
maks | 79 | 44.86 ± 3.93 (36 - 57) | 44.26 ± 3.65 (36 - 52) | 45.45 ± 4.14 (38 - 57) | 0.179 |
ibs | 79 | 15.66 ± 2.21 (9 - 20) | 15.62 ± 2.14 (11 - 20) | 15.70 ± 2.31 (9 - 20) | 0.866 |
ers_e | 79 | 12.30 ± 1.42 (9 - 15) | 12.33 ± 1.46 (9 - 15) | 12.28 ± 1.40 (9 - 15) | 0.856 |
ers_r | 79 | 11.41 ± 1.50 (8 - 15) | 11.33 ± 1.36 (8 - 14) | 11.47 ± 1.63 (8 - 15) | 0.677 |
pss_pa | 79 | 44.97 ± 4.67 (30 - 54) | 44.41 ± 4.59 (30 - 54) | 45.52 ± 4.74 (31 - 54) | 0.292 |
pss_ps | 79 | 25.49 ± 7.38 (12 - 42) | 26.51 ± 7.71 (14 - 42) | 24.50 ± 7.00 (12 - 41) | 0.228 |
pss | 79 | 43.52 ± 11.30 (21 - 72) | 45.10 ± 11.69 (23 - 72) | 41.98 ± 10.83 (21 - 67) | 0.221 |
rki_responsible | 79 | 21.27 ± 3.94 (13 - 29) | 20.82 ± 4.25 (13 - 29) | 21.70 ± 3.60 (14 - 28) | 0.324 |
rki_nonlinear | 79 | 13.44 ± 2.72 (7 - 22) | 13.21 ± 2.48 (7 - 20) | 13.68 ± 2.95 (8 - 22) | 0.446 |
rki_peer | 79 | 20.46 ± 2.20 (16 - 25) | 20.54 ± 2.22 (16 - 25) | 20.38 ± 2.20 (16 - 25) | 0.744 |
rki_expect | 79 | 4.70 ± 0.99 (3 - 7) | 4.46 ± 0.94 (3 - 6) | 4.92 ± 1.00 (3 - 7) | 0.037 |
rki | 79 | 59.86 ± 5.79 (50 - 80) | 59.03 ± 5.89 (50 - 76) | 60.67 ± 5.64 (50 - 80) | 0.207 |
raq_possible | 79 | 15.58 ± 1.88 (12 - 20) | 15.64 ± 2.03 (12 - 20) | 15.53 ± 1.74 (12 - 20) | 0.786 |
raq_difficulty | 79 | 12.30 ± 1.44 (9 - 15) | 12.44 ± 1.48 (9 - 15) | 12.18 ± 1.41 (9 - 15) | 0.426 |
raq | 79 | 27.89 ± 3.04 (21 - 35) | 28.08 ± 3.26 (21 - 35) | 27.70 ± 2.84 (21 - 35) | 0.585 |
who | 79 | 14.99 ± 4.42 (6 - 25) | 14.95 ± 4.29 (8 - 25) | 15.03 ± 4.59 (6 - 25) | 0.939 |
phq | 79 | 3.58 ± 3.78 (0 - 18) | 3.72 ± 3.68 (0 - 14) | 3.45 ± 3.92 (0 - 18) | 0.755 |
gad | 79 | 3.05 ± 3.11 (0 - 12) | 3.28 ± 3.14 (0 - 12) | 2.83 ± 3.11 (0 - 12) | 0.518 |
nb_pcs | 79 | 50.81 ± 7.80 (25 - 63) | 51.43 ± 7.63 (25 - 63) | 50.20 ± 8.01 (27 - 61) | 0.488 |
nb_mcs | 79 | 50.94 ± 8.63 (22 - 70) | 50.39 ± 9.06 (22 - 68) | 51.48 ± 8.27 (35 - 70) | 0.577 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | (Intercept) | 19.2 | 0.338 | 18.5, 19.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.696 | 0.475 | -0.236, 1.63 | 0.146 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.296 | 0.399 | -1.08, 0.486 | 0.461 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.011 | 0.589 | -1.17, 1.14 | 0.985 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.032 | ||||
setv | (Intercept) | 11.0 | 0.270 | 10.5, 11.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.399 | 0.379 | -0.344, 1.14 | 0.295 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.260 | 0.268 | -0.266, 0.786 | 0.336 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.193 | 0.398 | -0.974, 0.587 | 0.629 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
maks | (Intercept) | 44.3 | 0.649 | 43.0, 45.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.19 | 0.912 | -0.594, 2.98 | 0.194 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.068 | 0.496 | -0.904, 1.04 | 0.892 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.291 | 0.740 | -1.16, 1.74 | 0.696 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
ibs | (Intercept) | 15.6 | 0.337 | 15.0, 16.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.085 | 0.474 | -0.845, 1.01 | 0.859 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.189 | 0.317 | -0.432, 0.810 | 0.553 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.259 | 0.471 | -0.664, 1.18 | 0.584 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
ers_e | (Intercept) | 12.3 | 0.228 | 11.9, 12.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.058 | 0.320 | -0.686, 0.569 | 0.856 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.532 | 0.185 | -0.895, -0.169 | 0.006 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.528 | 0.276 | -0.014, 1.07 | 0.061 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
ers_r | (Intercept) | 11.3 | 0.234 | 10.9, 11.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.142 | 0.329 | -0.503, 0.786 | 0.668 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.125 | 0.256 | -0.626, 0.376 | 0.626 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.268 | 0.378 | -0.473, 1.01 | 0.481 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
pss_pa | (Intercept) | 44.4 | 0.731 | 43.0, 45.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.11 | 1.027 | -0.899, 3.13 | 0.280 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.39 | 0.802 | -2.96, 0.185 | 0.089 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.101 | 1.187 | -2.22, 2.43 | 0.932 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
pss_ps | (Intercept) | 26.5 | 1.174 | 24.2, 28.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -2.01 | 1.650 | -5.25, 1.22 | 0.225 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.23 | 1.119 | -0.966, 3.42 | 0.277 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.37 | 1.663 | -4.63, 1.89 | 0.413 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.035 | ||||
pss | (Intercept) | 45.1 | 1.752 | 41.7, 48.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -3.13 | 2.463 | -7.95, 1.70 | 0.207 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.65 | 1.637 | -0.557, 5.86 | 0.110 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.52 | 2.434 | -6.29, 3.25 | 0.534 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.039 | ||||
rki_responsible | (Intercept) | 20.8 | 0.590 | 19.7, 22.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.879 | 0.829 | -0.744, 2.50 | 0.291 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.047 | 0.602 | -1.13, 1.23 | 0.938 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.394 | 0.893 | -2.14, 1.36 | 0.661 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
rki_nonlinear | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.449 | 12.3, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.470 | 0.632 | -0.768, 1.71 | 0.459 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.340 | 0.439 | -1.20, 0.520 | 0.441 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.528 | 0.651 | -0.749, 1.80 | 0.421 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
rki_peer | (Intercept) | 20.5 | 0.360 | 19.8, 21.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.163 | 0.506 | -1.15, 0.828 | 0.747 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.036 | 0.363 | -0.747, 0.675 | 0.921 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.219 | 0.538 | -0.836, 1.27 | 0.686 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
rki_expect | (Intercept) | 4.46 | 0.153 | 4.16, 4.76 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.463 | 0.215 | 0.042, 0.885 | 0.033 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.161 | 0.194 | -0.219, 0.542 | 0.409 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.003 | 0.286 | -0.563, 0.557 | 0.992 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.059 | ||||
rki | (Intercept) | 59.0 | 0.868 | 57.3, 60.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.65 | 1.220 | -0.743, 4.04 | 0.179 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.148 | 0.911 | -1.93, 1.64 | 0.872 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.296 | 1.349 | -2.35, 2.94 | 0.827 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
raq_possible | (Intercept) | 15.6 | 0.288 | 15.1, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.116 | 0.404 | -0.908, 0.676 | 0.775 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.358 | 0.314 | -0.973, 0.256 | 0.257 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.694 | 0.464 | -0.215, 1.60 | 0.139 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
raq_difficulty | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.231 | 12.0, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.261 | 0.324 | -0.897, 0.375 | 0.423 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.015 | 0.218 | -0.442, 0.412 | 0.944 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.212 | 0.324 | -0.422, 0.847 | 0.515 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
raq | (Intercept) | 28.1 | 0.479 | 27.1, 29.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.377 | 0.673 | -1.70, 0.941 | 0.576 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.351 | 0.465 | -1.26, 0.561 | 0.454 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.920 | 0.691 | -0.434, 2.27 | 0.187 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
who | (Intercept) | 14.9 | 0.706 | 13.6, 16.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.076 | 0.992 | -1.87, 2.02 | 0.939 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.316 | 0.560 | -1.41, 0.782 | 0.575 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.047 | 0.836 | -1.59, 1.68 | 0.955 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
phq | (Intercept) | 3.72 | 0.579 | 2.58, 4.85 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.268 | 0.813 | -1.86, 1.33 | 0.743 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.059 | 0.380 | -0.686, 0.805 | 0.877 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.067 | 0.569 | -1.18, 1.05 | 0.906 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
gad | (Intercept) | 3.28 | 0.508 | 2.29, 4.28 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.457 | 0.714 | -1.86, 0.943 | 0.524 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.214 | 0.415 | -0.599, 1.03 | 0.608 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.143 | 0.618 | -1.07, 1.35 | 0.818 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
nb_pcs | (Intercept) | 51.4 | 1.198 | 49.1, 53.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.23 | 1.684 | -4.53, 2.07 | 0.468 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.608 | 0.881 | -2.33, 1.12 | 0.493 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 2.33 | 1.315 | -0.245, 4.91 | 0.081 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
nb_mcs | (Intercept) | 50.4 | 1.339 | 47.8, 53.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.09 | 1.881 | -2.60, 4.78 | 0.563 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.203 | 1.224 | -2.60, 2.20 | 0.869 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.735 | 1.821 | -4.30, 2.83 | 0.688 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
sets
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sets with group and time_point (formula: sets ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.39) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.18 (95% CI [18.52, 19.84], t(134) = 56.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.63], t(134) = 1.46, p = 0.143; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.77])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.49], t(134) = -0.74, p = 0.458; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-1.17, 1.14], t(134) = -0.02, p = 0.985; Std. beta = -5.28e-03, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
setv
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict setv with group and time_point (formula: setv ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.03 (95% CI [10.50, 11.55], t(134) = 40.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.14], t(134) = 1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.68])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.79], t(134) = 0.97, p = 0.332; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.97, 0.59], t(134) = -0.49, p = 0.627; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
maks
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict maks with group and time_point (formula: maks ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 44.26 (95% CI [42.98, 45.53], t(134) = 68.21, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-0.59, 2.98], t(134) = 1.31, p = 0.191; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.75])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.90, 1.04], t(134) = 0.14, p = 0.892; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.16, 1.74], t(134) = 0.39, p = 0.694; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ibs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ibs with group and time_point (formula: ibs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.01e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.62 (95% CI [14.95, 16.28], t(134) = 46.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.01], t(134) = 0.18, p = 0.858; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.81], t(134) = 0.60, p = 0.551; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.66, 1.18], t(134) = 0.55, p = 0.582; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ers_e
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ers_e with group and time_point (formula: ers_e ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.33 (95% CI [11.89, 12.78], t(134) = 54.15, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.57], t(134) = -0.18, p = 0.855; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-0.90, -0.17], t(134) = -2.87, p = 0.004; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.64, -0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.01, 1.07], t(134) = 1.91, p = 0.056; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-9.71e-03, 0.76])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ers_r
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ers_r with group and time_point (formula: ers_r ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.78e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.33 (95% CI [10.87, 11.79], t(134) = 48.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.79], t(134) = 0.43, p = 0.667; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.38], t(134) = -0.49, p = 0.624; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.01], t(134) = 0.71, p = 0.478; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.70])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss_pa
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss_pa with group and time_point (formula: pss_pa ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 44.41 (95% CI [42.98, 45.84], t(134) = 60.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-0.90, 3.13], t(134) = 1.08, p = 0.278; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.68])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.39, 95% CI [-2.96, 0.18], t(134) = -1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-2.22, 2.43], t(134) = 0.09, p = 0.932; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss_ps
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss_ps with group and time_point (formula: pss_ps ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.51 (95% CI [24.21, 28.81], t(134) = 22.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.01, 95% CI [-5.25, 1.22], t(134) = -1.22, p = 0.222; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.17])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.23, 95% CI [-0.97, 3.42], t(134) = 1.10, p = 0.273; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-4.63, 1.89], t(134) = -0.82, p = 0.410; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss with group and time_point (formula: pss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 45.10 (95% CI [41.67, 48.54], t(134) = 25.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.13, 95% CI [-7.95, 1.70], t(134) = -1.27, p = 0.204; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.15])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.65, 95% CI [-0.56, 5.86], t(134) = 1.62, p = 0.105; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.53])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.52, 95% CI [-6.29, 3.25], t(134) = -0.63, p = 0.532; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_responsible
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_responsible with group and time_point (formula: rki_responsible ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.82 (95% CI [19.66, 21.98], t(134) = 35.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.74, 2.50], t(134) = 1.06, p = 0.288; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.69])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-1.13, 1.23], t(134) = 0.08, p = 0.937; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-2.14, 1.36], t(134) = -0.44, p = 0.659; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_nonlinear
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_nonlinear with group and time_point (formula: rki_nonlinear ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.21 (95% CI [12.32, 14.09], t(134) = 29.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.71], t(134) = 0.74, p = 0.457; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.20, 0.52], t(134) = -0.78, p = 0.438; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.80], t(134) = 0.81, p = 0.418; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.65])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_peer
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_peer with group and time_point (formula: rki_peer ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.06e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.54 (95% CI [19.83, 21.24], t(134) = 57.06, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.83], t(134) = -0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.67], t(134) = -0.10, p = 0.921; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.27], t(134) = 0.41, p = 0.685; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_expect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_expect with group and time_point (formula: rki_expect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 4.46 (95% CI [4.16, 4.76], t(134) = 29.16, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [0.04, 0.88], t(134) = 2.16, p = 0.031; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [0.04, 0.91])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.54], t(134) = 0.83, p = 0.406; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.56])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.89e-03, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.56], t(134) = -0.01, p = 0.992; Std. beta = -2.96e-03, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki with group and time_point (formula: rki ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 59.03 (95% CI [57.32, 60.73], t(134) = 67.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.65, 95% CI [-0.74, 4.04], t(134) = 1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.76])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.93, 1.64], t(134) = -0.16, p = 0.871; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-2.35, 2.94], t(134) = 0.22, p = 0.826; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq_possible
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq_possible with group and time_point (formula: raq_possible ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.64 (95% CI [15.08, 16.20], t(134) = 54.40, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.68], t(134) = -0.29, p = 0.774; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.97, 0.26], t(134) = -1.14, p = 0.253; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.60], t(134) = 1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.90])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq_difficulty
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq_difficulty with group and time_point (formula: raq_difficulty ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.44 (95% CI [11.98, 12.89], t(134) = 53.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.38], t(134) = -0.80, p = 0.421; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.26])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.41], t(134) = -0.07, p = 0.944; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.85], t(134) = 0.66, p = 0.512; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.59])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq with group and time_point (formula: raq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.98e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.08 (95% CI [27.14, 29.01], t(134) = 58.67, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.70, 0.94], t(134) = -0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.32])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.26, 0.56], t(134) = -0.75, p = 0.451; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.43, 2.27], t(134) = 1.33, p = 0.183; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.76])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
who
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict who with group and time_point (formula: who ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.28e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.95 (95% CI [13.57, 16.33], t(134) = 21.18, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.87, 2.02], t(134) = 0.08, p = 0.939; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.41, 0.78], t(134) = -0.56, p = 0.573; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-1.59, 1.68], t(134) = 0.06, p = 0.955; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
phq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict phq with group and time_point (formula: phq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.75e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.72 (95% CI [2.58, 4.85], t(134) = 6.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.86, 1.33], t(134) = -0.33, p = 0.742; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.80], t(134) = 0.16, p = 0.876; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.18, 1.05], t(134) = -0.12, p = 0.906; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
gad
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict gad with group and time_point (formula: gad ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.28 (95% CI [2.29, 4.28], t(134) = 6.46, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.86, 0.94], t(134) = -0.64, p = 0.522; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.03], t(134) = 0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.07, 1.35], t(134) = 0.23, p = 0.817; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
nb_pcs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict nb_pcs with group and time_point (formula: nb_pcs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.25e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 51.43 (95% CI [49.08, 53.78], t(134) = 42.92, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.23, 95% CI [-4.53, 2.07], t(134) = -0.73, p = 0.466; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.28])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-2.33, 1.12], t(134) = -0.69, p = 0.490; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.33, 95% CI [-0.24, 4.91], t(134) = 1.77, p = 0.076; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.66])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
nb_mcs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict nb_mcs with group and time_point (formula: nb_mcs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.87e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 50.39 (95% CI [47.77, 53.02], t(134) = 37.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-2.60, 4.78], t(134) = 0.58, p = 0.562; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-2.60, 2.20], t(134) = -0.17, p = 0.868; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-4.30, 2.83], t(134) = -0.40, p = 0.686; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | null | 3 | 603.804 | 612.629 | -298.902 | 597.804 | |||
sets | random | 6 | 605.636 | 623.286 | -296.818 | 593.636 | 4.168 | 3 | 0.244 |
setv | null | 3 | 524.662 | 533.487 | -259.331 | 518.662 | |||
setv | random | 6 | 528.838 | 546.488 | -258.419 | 516.838 | 1.823 | 3 | 0.610 |
maks | null | 3 | 745.149 | 753.974 | -369.574 | 739.149 | |||
maks | random | 6 | 748.420 | 766.070 | -368.210 | 736.420 | 2.728 | 3 | 0.435 |
ibs | null | 3 | 582.183 | 591.008 | -288.092 | 576.183 | |||
ibs | random | 6 | 586.035 | 603.685 | -287.017 | 574.035 | 2.148 | 3 | 0.542 |
ers_e | null | 3 | 464.134 | 472.959 | -229.067 | 458.134 | |||
ers_e | random | 6 | 461.790 | 479.440 | -224.895 | 449.790 | 8.344 | 3 | 0.039 |
ers_r | null | 3 | 492.254 | 501.079 | -243.127 | 486.254 | |||
ers_r | random | 6 | 496.971 | 514.621 | -242.486 | 484.971 | 1.282 | 3 | 0.733 |
pss_pa | null | 3 | 817.268 | 826.093 | -405.634 | 811.268 | |||
pss_pa | random | 6 | 816.198 | 833.848 | -402.099 | 804.198 | 7.070 | 3 | 0.070 |
pss_ps | null | 3 | 934.874 | 943.699 | -464.437 | 928.874 | |||
pss_ps | random | 6 | 936.599 | 954.248 | -462.299 | 924.599 | 4.276 | 3 | 0.233 |
pss | null | 3 | 1,046.909 | 1,055.734 | -520.455 | 1,040.909 | |||
pss | random | 6 | 1,046.865 | 1,064.515 | -517.432 | 1,034.865 | 6.044 | 3 | 0.109 |
rki_responsible | null | 3 | 745.252 | 754.077 | -369.626 | 739.252 | |||
rki_responsible | random | 6 | 749.976 | 767.626 | -368.988 | 737.976 | 1.276 | 3 | 0.735 |
rki_nonlinear | null | 3 | 666.150 | 674.975 | -330.075 | 660.150 | |||
rki_nonlinear | random | 6 | 669.905 | 687.555 | -328.953 | 657.905 | 2.245 | 3 | 0.523 |
rki_peer | null | 3 | 604.907 | 613.732 | -299.453 | 598.907 | |||
rki_peer | random | 6 | 610.648 | 628.298 | -299.324 | 598.648 | 0.258 | 3 | 0.968 |
rki_expect | null | 3 | 389.677 | 398.502 | -191.838 | 383.677 | |||
rki_expect | random | 6 | 388.097 | 405.747 | -188.049 | 376.097 | 7.580 | 3 | 0.056 |
rki | null | 3 | 857.411 | 866.236 | -425.705 | 851.411 | |||
rki | random | 6 | 860.676 | 878.326 | -424.338 | 848.676 | 2.735 | 3 | 0.434 |
raq_possible | null | 3 | 550.938 | 559.763 | -272.469 | 544.938 | |||
raq_possible | random | 6 | 554.404 | 572.054 | -271.202 | 542.404 | 2.534 | 3 | 0.469 |
raq_difficulty | null | 3 | 475.368 | 484.193 | -234.684 | 469.368 | |||
raq_difficulty | random | 6 | 480.282 | 497.932 | -234.141 | 468.282 | 1.086 | 3 | 0.780 |
raq | null | 3 | 682.981 | 691.805 | -338.490 | 676.981 | |||
raq | random | 6 | 687.141 | 704.791 | -337.570 | 675.141 | 1.840 | 3 | 0.606 |
who | null | 3 | 770.469 | 779.294 | -382.234 | 764.469 | |||
who | random | 6 | 775.930 | 793.580 | -381.965 | 763.930 | 0.539 | 3 | 0.910 |
phq | null | 3 | 694.249 | 703.074 | -344.125 | 688.249 | |||
phq | random | 6 | 700.076 | 717.726 | -344.038 | 688.076 | 0.173 | 3 | 0.982 |
gad | null | 3 | 682.188 | 691.013 | -338.094 | 676.188 | |||
gad | random | 6 | 686.884 | 704.534 | -337.442 | 674.884 | 1.303 | 3 | 0.728 |
nb_pcs | null | 3 | 913.648 | 922.473 | -453.824 | 907.648 | |||
nb_pcs | random | 6 | 916.062 | 933.712 | -452.031 | 904.062 | 3.586 | 3 | 0.310 |
nb_mcs | null | 3 | 964.203 | 973.028 | -479.102 | 958.203 | |||
nb_mcs | random | 6 | 969.435 | 987.084 | -478.717 | 957.435 | 0.769 | 3 | 0.857 |
Post hoc analysis text
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
sets | 1st | 39 | 19.18 ± 2.11 | 40 | 19.87 ± 2.11 | 0.146 | -0.414 | ||
sets | 2nd | 34 | 18.88 ± 2.10 | 0.176 | 27 | 19.57 ± 2.07 | 0.183 | 0.205 | -0.407 |
setv | 1st | 39 | 11.03 ± 1.69 | 40 | 11.42 ± 1.69 | 0.295 | -0.356 | ||
setv | 2nd | 34 | 11.29 ± 1.65 | -0.232 | 27 | 11.49 ± 1.60 | -0.060 | 0.624 | -0.184 |
maks | 1st | 39 | 44.26 ± 4.05 | 40 | 45.45 ± 4.05 | 0.194 | -0.579 | ||
maks | 2nd | 34 | 44.32 ± 3.91 | -0.033 | 27 | 45.81 ± 3.68 | -0.174 | 0.131 | -0.720 |
ibs | 1st | 39 | 15.62 ± 2.11 | 40 | 15.70 ± 2.11 | 0.859 | -0.064 | ||
ibs | 2nd | 34 | 15.80 ± 2.06 | -0.143 | 27 | 16.15 ± 1.98 | -0.339 | 0.510 | -0.260 |
ers_e | 1st | 39 | 12.33 ± 1.42 | 40 | 12.28 ± 1.42 | 0.856 | 0.076 | ||
ers_e | 2nd | 34 | 11.80 ± 1.38 | 0.690 | 27 | 12.27 ± 1.30 | 0.006 | 0.176 | -0.609 |
ers_r | 1st | 39 | 11.33 ± 1.46 | 40 | 11.48 ± 1.46 | 0.668 | -0.132 | ||
ers_r | 2nd | 34 | 11.21 ± 1.44 | 0.117 | 27 | 11.62 ± 1.42 | -0.133 | 0.268 | -0.382 |
pss_pa | 1st | 39 | 44.41 ± 4.57 | 40 | 45.53 ± 4.57 | 0.280 | -0.331 | ||
pss_pa | 2nd | 34 | 43.02 ± 4.51 | 0.412 | 27 | 44.24 ± 4.42 | 0.382 | 0.293 | -0.361 |
pss_ps | 1st | 39 | 26.51 ± 7.33 | 40 | 24.50 ± 7.33 | 0.225 | 0.430 | ||
pss_ps | 2nd | 34 | 27.74 ± 7.17 | -0.263 | 27 | 24.36 ± 6.92 | 0.031 | 0.064 | 0.724 |
pss | 1st | 39 | 45.10 ± 10.94 | 40 | 41.97 ± 10.94 | 0.207 | 0.457 | ||
pss | 2nd | 34 | 47.75 ± 10.69 | -0.388 | 27 | 43.11 ± 10.29 | -0.165 | 0.087 | 0.680 |
rki_responsible | 1st | 39 | 20.82 ± 3.68 | 40 | 21.70 ± 3.68 | 0.291 | -0.349 | ||
rki_responsible | 2nd | 34 | 20.87 ± 3.62 | -0.019 | 27 | 21.35 ± 3.52 | 0.138 | 0.598 | -0.193 |
rki_nonlinear | 1st | 39 | 13.21 ± 2.81 | 40 | 13.68 ± 2.81 | 0.459 | -0.256 | ||
rki_nonlinear | 2nd | 34 | 12.87 ± 2.75 | 0.185 | 27 | 13.86 ± 2.66 | -0.102 | 0.154 | -0.544 |
rki_peer | 1st | 39 | 20.54 ± 2.25 | 40 | 20.37 ± 2.25 | 0.747 | 0.108 | ||
rki_peer | 2nd | 34 | 20.50 ± 2.21 | 0.024 | 27 | 20.56 ± 2.14 | -0.120 | 0.922 | -0.036 |
rki_expect | 1st | 39 | 4.46 ± 0.96 | 40 | 4.92 ± 0.96 | 0.033 | -0.565 | ||
rki_expect | 2nd | 34 | 4.62 ± 0.95 | -0.197 | 27 | 5.08 ± 0.95 | -0.193 | 0.062 | -0.562 |
rki | 1st | 39 | 59.03 ± 5.42 | 40 | 60.68 ± 5.42 | 0.179 | -0.432 | ||
rki | 2nd | 34 | 58.88 ± 5.34 | 0.039 | 27 | 60.82 ± 5.21 | -0.039 | 0.154 | -0.510 |
raq_possible | 1st | 39 | 15.64 ± 1.80 | 40 | 15.52 ± 1.80 | 0.775 | 0.088 | ||
raq_possible | 2nd | 34 | 15.28 ± 1.77 | 0.272 | 27 | 15.86 ± 1.74 | -0.256 | 0.203 | -0.440 |
raq_difficulty | 1st | 39 | 12.44 ± 1.44 | 40 | 12.18 ± 1.44 | 0.423 | 0.287 | ||
raq_difficulty | 2nd | 34 | 12.42 ± 1.41 | 0.017 | 27 | 12.37 ± 1.36 | -0.216 | 0.891 | 0.054 |
raq | 1st | 39 | 28.08 ± 2.99 | 40 | 27.70 ± 2.99 | 0.576 | 0.194 | ||
raq | 2nd | 34 | 27.73 ± 2.93 | 0.180 | 27 | 28.27 ± 2.83 | -0.293 | 0.465 | -0.279 |
who | 1st | 39 | 14.95 ± 4.41 | 40 | 15.03 ± 4.41 | 0.939 | -0.033 | ||
who | 2nd | 34 | 14.63 ± 4.26 | 0.136 | 27 | 14.76 ± 4.02 | 0.116 | 0.908 | -0.053 |
phq | 1st | 39 | 3.72 ± 3.61 | 40 | 3.45 ± 3.61 | 0.743 | 0.170 | ||
phq | 2nd | 34 | 3.78 ± 3.46 | -0.038 | 27 | 3.44 ± 3.21 | 0.005 | 0.696 | 0.213 |
gad | 1st | 39 | 3.28 ± 3.17 | 40 | 2.82 ± 3.17 | 0.524 | 0.265 | ||
gad | 2nd | 34 | 3.50 ± 3.07 | -0.124 | 27 | 3.18 ± 2.91 | -0.206 | 0.684 | 0.182 |
nb_pcs | 1st | 39 | 51.43 ± 7.48 | 40 | 50.20 ± 7.48 | 0.468 | 0.335 | ||
nb_pcs | 2nd | 34 | 50.82 ± 7.20 | 0.166 | 27 | 51.93 ± 6.75 | -0.471 | 0.539 | -0.302 |
nb_mcs | 1st | 39 | 50.39 ± 8.36 | 40 | 51.48 ± 8.36 | 0.563 | -0.214 | ||
nb_mcs | 2nd | 34 | 50.19 ± 8.15 | 0.040 | 27 | 50.55 ± 7.83 | 0.184 | 0.863 | -0.070 |
Between group
sets
1st
t(121.99) = 1.46, p = 0.146, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.64)
2st
t(132.06) = 1.27, p = 0.205, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.75)
setv
1st
t(108.04) = 1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.15)
2st
t(124.70) = 0.49, p = 0.624, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.04)
maks
1st
t(94.17) = 1.31, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.62 to 3.00)
2st
t(110.80) = 1.52, p = 0.131, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-0.45 to 3.42)
ibs
1st
t(104.33) = 0.18, p = 0.859, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.02)
2st
t(121.81) = 0.66, p = 0.510, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.69 to 1.37)
ers_e
1st
t(96.74) = -0.18, p = 0.856, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.69 to 0.58)
2st
t(114.08) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.21 to 1.15)
ers_r
1st
t(115.29) = 0.43, p = 0.668, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.51 to 0.79)
2st
t(129.10) = 1.11, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.14)
pss_pa
1st
t(115.65) = 1.08, p = 0.280, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.92 to 3.15)
2st
t(129.28) = 1.06, p = 0.293, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-1.06 to 3.49)
pss_ps
1st
t(105.30) = -1.22, p = 0.225, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-5.28 to 1.26)
2st
t(122.61) = -1.87, p = 0.064, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-6.97 to 0.20)
pss
1st
t(104.02) = -1.27, p = 0.207, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-8.01 to 1.76)
2st
t(121.54) = -1.72, p = 0.087, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-9.99 to 0.69)
rki_responsible
1st
t(110.02) = 1.06, p = 0.291, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.76 to 2.52)
2st
t(126.05) = 0.53, p = 0.598, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.33 to 2.30)
rki_nonlinear
1st
t(106.82) = 0.74, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.72)
2st
t(123.80) = 1.43, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.38 to 2.37)
rki_peer
1st
t(109.06) = -0.32, p = 0.747, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.17 to 0.84)
2st
t(125.41) = 0.10, p = 0.922, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.05 to 1.16)
rki_expect
1st
t(128.36) = 2.16, p = 0.033, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.04 to 0.89)
2st
t(134.15) = 1.88, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.02 to 0.95)
rki
1st
t(112.02) = 1.35, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.77 to 4.07)
2st
t(127.30) = 1.43, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.74 to 4.63)
raq_possible
1st
t(115.14) = -0.29, p = 0.775, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.68)
2st
t(129.03) = 1.28, p = 0.203, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.47)
raq_difficulty
1st
t(104.64) = -0.80, p = 0.423, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-0.90 to 0.38)
2st
t(122.06) = -0.14, p = 0.891, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.75 to 0.66)
raq
1st
t(106.56) = -0.56, p = 0.576, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.71 to 0.96)
2st
t(123.61) = 0.73, p = 0.465, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.01)
who
1st
t(95.70) = 0.08, p = 0.939, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.89 to 2.04)
2st
t(112.80) = 0.12, p = 0.908, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.99 to 2.23)
phq
1st
t(89.29) = -0.33, p = 0.743, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.88 to 1.35)
2st
t(103.42) = -0.39, p = 0.696, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-2.03 to 1.36)
gad
1st
t(96.90) = -0.64, p = 0.524, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.87 to 0.96)
2st
t(114.27) = -0.41, p = 0.684, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.84 to 1.21)
nb_pcs
1st
t(92.74) = -0.73, p = 0.468, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-4.57 to 2.12)
2st
t(108.80) = 0.62, p = 0.539, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-2.45 to 4.66)
nb_mcs
1st
t(102.74) = 0.58, p = 0.563, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-2.64 to 4.82)
2st
t(120.40) = 0.17, p = 0.863, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-3.71 to 4.43)
Within treatment group
sets
1st vs 2st
t(71.55) = -0.71, p = 0.482, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.17 to 0.56)
setv
1st vs 2st
t(67.82) = 0.23, p = 0.821, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.66)
maks
1st vs 2st
t(64.11) = 0.65, p = 0.517, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.74 to 1.46)
ibs
1st vs 2st
t(66.84) = 1.28, p = 0.204, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.15)
ers_e
1st vs 2st
t(64.81) = -0.02, p = 0.982, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.41)
ers_r
1st vs 2st
t(69.72) = 0.51, p = 0.611, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.70)
pss_pa
1st vs 2st
t(69.82) = -1.47, p = 0.147, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-3.04 to 0.46)
pss_ps
1st vs 2st
t(67.10) = -0.12, p = 0.908, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.61 to 2.32)
pss
1st vs 2st
t(66.76) = 0.63, p = 0.533, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-2.47 to 4.74)
rki_responsible
1st vs 2st
t(68.33) = -0.52, p = 0.602, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.67 to 0.97)
rki_nonlinear
1st vs 2st
t(67.49) = 0.39, p = 0.699, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.15)
rki_peer
1st vs 2st
t(68.08) = 0.46, p = 0.649, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.61 to 0.98)
rki_expect
1st vs 2st
t(73.49) = 0.75, p = 0.453, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.58)
rki
1st vs 2st
t(68.86) = 0.15, p = 0.882, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.84 to 2.14)
raq_possible
1st vs 2st
t(69.68) = 0.98, p = 0.331, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.02)
raq_difficulty
1st vs 2st
t(66.92) = 0.82, p = 0.416, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.28 to 0.68)
raq
1st vs 2st
t(67.43) = 1.11, p = 0.270, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.59)
who
1st vs 2st
t(64.53) = -0.43, p = 0.666, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.51 to 0.97)
phq
1st vs 2st
t(62.74) = -0.02, p = 0.985, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.84)
gad
1st vs 2st
t(64.86) = 0.78, p = 0.441, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.56 to 1.27)
nb_pcs
1st vs 2st
t(63.71) = 1.76, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.23 to 3.68)
nb_mcs
1st vs 2st
t(66.42) = -0.69, p = 0.490, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-3.64 to 1.76)
Within control group
sets
1st vs 2st
t(64.41) = -0.74, p = 0.461, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.50)
setv
1st vs 2st
t(62.66) = 0.97, p = 0.337, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.28 to 0.80)
maks
1st vs 2st
t(61.07) = 0.14, p = 0.892, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.92 to 1.06)
ibs
1st vs 2st
t(62.23) = 0.60, p = 0.553, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.82)
ers_e
1st vs 2st
t(61.36) = -2.87, p = 0.006, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-0.90 to -0.16)
ers_r
1st vs 2st
t(63.53) = -0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.64 to 0.39)
pss_pa
1st vs 2st
t(63.57) = -1.73, p = 0.089, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-2.99 to 0.22)
pss_ps
1st vs 2st
t(62.34) = 1.10, p = 0.277, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.01 to 3.47)
pss
1st vs 2st
t(62.19) = 1.62, p = 0.111, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.62 to 5.93)
rki_responsible
1st vs 2st
t(62.89) = 0.08, p = 0.938, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.16 to 1.25)
rki_nonlinear
1st vs 2st
t(62.52) = -0.77, p = 0.442, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.22 to 0.54)
rki_peer
1st vs 2st
t(62.78) = -0.10, p = 0.921, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.69)
rki_expect
1st vs 2st
t(65.40) = 0.83, p = 0.409, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.55)
rki
1st vs 2st
t(63.13) = -0.16, p = 0.872, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.97 to 1.67)
raq_possible
1st vs 2st
t(63.51) = -1.14, p = 0.258, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.27)
raq_difficulty
1st vs 2st
t(62.26) = -0.07, p = 0.944, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.42)
raq
1st vs 2st
t(62.49) = -0.75, p = 0.454, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.58)
who
1st vs 2st
t(61.24) = -0.56, p = 0.575, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.44 to 0.81)
phq
1st vs 2st
t(60.50) = 0.16, p = 0.877, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.82)
gad
1st vs 2st
t(61.38) = 0.51, p = 0.609, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.04)
nb_pcs
1st vs 2st
t(60.90) = -0.69, p = 0.493, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-2.37 to 1.15)
nb_mcs
1st vs 2st
t(62.05) = -0.17, p = 0.869, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-2.65 to 2.25)